Category talk:Collection of the Galleria Borghese

I recommend deletion of this entry

I have argued that this category is awkward.

The Borghese were wealthy and acquisitive patrons during the 17th century. There collections included Greco-Roman antiquities, Renaissance-Baroque artwork, and even later sculpture including a prominent statue by Antonio Canova, but most prominently a series of masterpieces by Gianlorenzo Bernini.

The problems with this category are that: 1) nearly all the other entries on collections for Italy and other countries are structured as Collections of blah-blah-blah See Category:Collections of museums in Italy

2) many of the antiquities of the Borghese, previously in the grounds of the Villa Borghese (now Borghese Gallery) were sold/transferred to the Louvre, as such they are items formerly of the Borghese.

3) the category includes works now at the Borghese Gallery in Rome, the existing remains of the works collected by the Borghese

My suggestion is to empty the category, and transfer all the contents to either

Collections of the Borghese Collections of the Borghese Gallery Collections of the Galleria Borghese‎

with sub categories 1) Paintings in the Borghese Gallery or Paintings in the Galleria Borghese‎ 2) Sculpture in the Borghese Gallery (as above)

3) Borghese antiquities

this category has works both in the Gallery and outside, mostly in Louvre either a note in the category indicates this or it is broken up into works in the Gallery and outside the Gallery

I think there is some merit of a category for antiquities formerly part of a private collection, but there is a slippery slope here in the discussion of provenance of works. If we take many of the works in a museum today, and create a category for their provenance, it will become a dense morass. For now, I think we should focus mainly on what collections the works form a part of now. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? This makes no sense. Part of the former collection is in Italy, with its own category, another large part in Paris. Your solution was to classify the French part as being in Italy, which made no sense at all. These categories are very stable, & talk of slippery slpoes and dense masses is ridiculous, imo. Apart from you and a couple of other obsessives, no one is very interested in categorizing this area, thank God! Category:Former private collections has been around since 2008 without causing any problems. I think you just don't get the interest in the history of collecting which has been such a feature of art history over the last 30 years. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, what is your problem? Since I have begun categorizing the locations of paintings a few dozen editors have added to the entries, and I expect this will only multiply. Again, let me challenge you here and now. How many edits, additions, corrections, and added categories to the trees need to be made before you are wrong?

You are making no sense. Your diatribes are a morass of quibbling with little reasoning. Your solution is to categorize a collection in the Louvre museum as still belonging to a family that had it nearly two centuries ago. This is ridiculous. If you took the time to read above, you see I offer to categorize it as formerly in the Borghese, which takes into account its present location. You say no one is interested in categorizing this area and then you talk about an esoteric category called former private collections. Now that is quirky of you. Half of many museums are "former private collections". As I pointed out before to you, provenance, a term you were not to familiar with, is horribly complex, and a far greater morass than categorizing works with regards to the simple question: where is it? Time, place, and manner are critical features of an object. You seem to ignore this fundamental point. Yes there is an interest in provenance, but please, take the time to examine as I pointed out to you, the provenance of Juan de Pareja at the MMA, a major Velazquez work in the America. Are you suggesting we should categorize that? That is a morass. You lose all perspective in a pell-mell of half-baked comments. Honestly, my suggestion here is that you should be ignored. Rococo1700 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)